₦airaland Forum

immortalcrown:
So, God will abandon the innocent children in a Church by leaving the Church because of the sinners in the Church?

There were children in sodom and gomo, canaan, Amalek etc and God was not there.

All unnatural tongues anywhere, are fake

IyfeNamikaze:
So I will begin by Quoting a paragraph from the Goodnews bible Preface on translation.

"Following the ancient tradition, begun by the first translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek(the Septuagint) and followed by the vast majority of English translations, the distinctive Hebrew name for God (usually transliterated Jehova or Yahweh) is in this translation represented by "The LORD ". When the Hebrew word Adonai, normally translated "Lord ", is followed by Yahweh, the combination is rendered by the phrase "Sovereign LORD".

The images below are from the KJVER( King James Easy Reading bible) and you can see that the underlined translation of LORD and God in smaller font are translated into its Hebrew translation as Jehova (LORD) and God (Elohim) .
One of the passage I uploaded as image is from Exodus when God was giving the Israelites the 10 commandments. This shows that the commandments came directly from Yahweh, God the Father.

Sorry.

Because yahweh is polluted by the same canaan that The Lord warned them not to touch, i do not think this declaration by the goodnews bible people is correct.

I think this is one of the several perversions created to blur and hide the Pure uncorrupted Truth of God.

For God would never allow His Name to be polluted or corrupted which is why we see that from Genesis to Revelation we see The Name of The LORD is LORD/Lord!

And clearly the reason why the LORD is in capitals almost throughout the O.T is reflective of the fact that Christ was in His full Authority in heaven and had not yet visited the earth as mankind

But in N.T, it is the "Lord" indicative of His humble presence on earth.

This is quite obvious i think

Ojuntana:
Go and read your Bible properly. God is not everywhere. God sees everything and knows everything but his presence is not everywhere. God does not inhabit a place where there is sin or unholiness.

Exactly.

immortalcrown:
OP, God's presence is one thing, people recognising and utilising the presence is another thing. Refusal to eat when food is available does not mean famine. Choosing to be naked when the wardrobe is stocked with clothes does not mean lack of clothes.

1.
God is everywhere, even in a bar, even where people are committing sins. Some of you think that God discriminates. That is why some of you think that God is not in your homes, and you consequently choose to sleep in the Church every night claiming that that is where you can find God. Even in your classroom, God is there. Even in your shop or office, God is not absent. Even in shrines, God is present.

2.
What is the meaning of "omnipresent"?. Stop claiming that God is not in some Churches. What you should say is that the majority in a Church may ignorantly or deliberately use certain behaviours to reject the benefits of God's presence.

3.
Church members finding holiness message boring does not mean the absence of God. In fact, the message itself is a noticeable evidence of God's presence in the Church.

4.
All your points here are invalid. Even if the leader of a Church is a champion of sin, God is still in that Church, at least for the sake of innocent Children in the same Church. [sub][/sub]

Proverbs 15:29 Says you are a Lying Serpent.
The Lord is far from the wicked:

Everyday247:
Op you do not understand, if the church implemented strict standards, many will not come to church. And if many do not come to church, that means insufficient tithe and offerings to fund buying of private jets i mean the spreading of the word of God.

That clearly means that they are not churches of God!

But churches of the dead and for the dead!

cutecommend:
Almost every Sunday, people go to church to worship God. Many go prepared and properly dressed. In some of these churches, there are exciting and nice activities that keep members excited, but even with the excitements, God is not really there.
As you keep attending church, remember that you are responsible for your soul, and you need to make the right decision on the kind of church you are going to so that you may not damn your soul.

Signs You are Attending a Dead or Dying Church.

(1) If true Holiness Message and solid doctrine is irritating, boring and unexciting to its members. But dancing, jumping, comedy, shouting wooo etc are more preferred to sound doctrine.

(2) If seductive and indecent dressing is highly tolerated, and some of the guys in church department plait hair.

(3) If members are ashamed to hold bible (physical bible) on the road while going to church.

(4) If comedians are coming to the pulpit to jest and tell lies to make people laugh.

(5) If such church makes you live comfortably in sin, while using grace message to make you feel alright even in sin.

(6) If prayers for repentance, consecration, fruits of the spirit, sanctification, purification, character development is put aside, while prayers for vision, prosperity, impact, taking territories, getting visa, going to the next levels, goals, purpose etc is emphasized more.

(7) If such church makes you have no thought or little awareness of the coming of Christ.

Tell them!

IyfeNamikaze:
But because you know that you're only just running in circles you've decided not to answer the questions that I asked because they would immediately reveal that Yahweh is Who told the prophets that HE will send a Messiah to them and it is made profoundly clear in Isaiah 42; 1-7 "Here is my servant, whom I strengthen—

See yourself. If you did not resort to denial you would have remembered that it was The LORD/Lord Who first told Moses which you see Revelations 1: 1 re affirms.

And it is still.The Same LORD/Lord Who stiil spoke to Isaiah here.

IyfeNamikaze:
I .... You're picking one verse and adding interpretations onto it that is different from what that verse is saying. Just like you've done yet again in[b] Rev.1;8 But when one reads the whole chapter 1 it becomes clear that God and Christ are mentioned in the same sentence[/b] on 4 good occasion which means that it was talking about two Entities.

See how you deny Revelation 1 which clearly starts by saying
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants (john and co)

And in verse 8 and 18 it is clear that it is The Lord, Jesus, Talking, yet make it sound like God and Christ Spoke at the same time in that chapter.

Whereas, Verse 1 already shows that the message was first given to Christ before He gave it His servants like John and the apostles and prophets.

Lucifyre:
Comprehension seems to be an issue here 🤦🏽

...So i end with saying again why does Christianity, with its profound theological depth and breadth, divine inspiration lack explicit references to planets and other celestial bodies apart from what was visible to the naked eyes as at then?? Why aren't they featured in the creation story??

Who cannot see that it is because clearly they have no direct relevance to our lives.

Drought in pluto won't change the price of petrol or the melting of Uranus won't stop plantain from ripening tomorrow.

IyfeNamikaze:
Let me make something very clear here. The 10 % Abram gave to Melchizedek was to honour God for a successful battle, but it was not part any laws at that time because no law existed then. That 10% or any form of tithing was not unique to Abram and his people then either , it was a general custom of people who lived at that time.
It was not until mount Sinai that it became a Law for the Israelites.

And when you say Christ made the moral laws more strict, what exactly do you mean by that?

What Law made Cain's murder of abel a crime?

IyfeNamikaze:
I think I will stop replying to you because it's now obvious to me what you're doing. You're picking one verse and adding interpretations onto it that is different from what that verse is saying. Just like you've done yet again in[b] Rev.1;8 But when one reads the whole chapter 1 it becomes clear that God and Christ are mentioned in the same sentence[/b] on 4 good occasion which means that it was talking about two Entities.

This is you showing denial at its greatest hour. So in your attempt to deny the clear Truth put before your eyes, you are attempting to create issues which non issues.

And see how you deny even the Revelation 1 which clearly starts by saying
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants (john and co)

And in verse 8 and 18 it is clear that it is The Lord, Jesus, Talking, yet you want twist it and make it sound like God and Christ Spoke at the same time.

Whereas, Verse 1 already shows that the message was first given to Christ before He gave it His servants like John and the apostles and prophets.

But because of the lies told you that O.T is different from N.T and that God became milder in N.T and all those shits, is why you cannot accept this plain Truth you have seen all along but because of your wishes you chose to accept the Lies even though you knew, which is why you are shouting here and about to go crazy in great fear and desperation, wishing yet again that i will say "o you are right" so that your heart can come down.

But unfortunately, for you, i am right and that is why you are screaming and about to abuse me.

IyfeNamikaze:
But because you know that you're only just running in circles you've decided not to answer the questions that I asked because they would immediately reveal that Yahweh is Who told the prophets that HE will send a Messiah to them and it is made profoundly clear in Isaiah 42; 1-7 "Here is my servant, whom I strengthen—

See yourself. If you did not resort to denial you would have remembered that it was The LORD/Lord Who first told Moses which you see Revelations 1: 1 re affirms.

And it is still.The Same LORD/Lord Who stiil spoke to Isaiah here.

And it is you who is dodging for i have even raised a thread on it but you are running and dodging because you do not want your lies and wishes destroyed

IyfeNamikaze:
Honestly your argument is neither here nor there and it's getting tiring to keep up , if you acknowledge that there is God Most High and God the Son then which One of them is Yahweh?

Let me see if you're going to answer the above question or dodge it like you dodged the others.

In Genesis upwards do.we see the word "Yahweh"? No.

Not to talk of the fact that Yahweh is said to be a pagan god of the Caananites whom Isreal and Judah worshipped which made The LORD/Lord punish them greatly.

And after that we do not see the word yahweh again in the bible.

But from Genesis to Revelation the LORD/Lord is used throughout. Of which The LORD clearly Said that His Name is The LORD" Isaiah 42:8

And not yahweh!

And i know you saw all these too but old age lies and your wishes did not let you consider these things, hence why you would angry when i make you see the things you already had seen but did not wish to see.

Flowing from the thread Will None Tithers Go To Hell? " IyfeNamikaze(m) says

"...The old testament translation of the word "The Lord" is different from the New testament translation of "Lord". The translators of the old testament scriptures used "The Lord" as a substitute for YHWH (YaHWeH) which is the holy name of God. They did this in order to preserve the holiness of God's name so as not to be used in vain...

If you have the goodnews bible or new translation bible you will notice that the word "THE LORD" are written in all caps. But in the new testament it is not written in caps but like this "The Lord" because it was no longer referring to YHWH but to Christ and is used as a title instead of a substitute for a holy name. I have a feeling that this uses of words in the bible is what's confusing you a bit..."

And i contest and state that whether written the LORD or the Lord, they still refer to the He Who is now known and called Christ Jesus as we clearly see in Revelations 1:8 snd other scriptures

IyfeNamikaze:
I can see that comprehension is a big problem for you. Anyway why don't you read John 17;5-26 if you think I'm talking rubbish?
You're just trying to make an interpretation out of a straight forward passage, I'm not here to debate whether the man kept the law or not, I just gave a summary of the passage you were trying to misinterpret.

But I can't help but notice how you've conveniently dodged the questions I asked you. Please answer those questions if you're sure about what you're talking about or keep shut.

Your problem is absorption of Truth.
People swallow greedily any lie that flatters them but reject or sip only little by little at a truth they find bitter.' Dennis Diderot.

I already told you that there is God Most High and His Holy Son. So John 17:5 is not an issue.

But your own problem is that you thought seperation of powers came from polificians whereas it is from God and He did it first in Genesis where you see, The LORD, exercises jurisdiction over the word as Mathew 28:18 re-declares.

But as said earlier, your problem is absorption of Bittter Truth.

And i did not attend to.your question because i saw that you were about to make the argument get bad and spiral out of control plus, those questions begin another argument in deviation from this one. They need their own thread and i' ll create one and mention you.

btoks:
So where is this so-called 'truth' about Mary having other children taught in antiquity? Which church fathers agree with this?.

Mathew 13:55-56 is still looking at you.

btoks:
I've mentioned that Matt 13 doesn't even prove the brothers are Mary's children

What proof does it need to bring? Family Picture or Dna?

You are just trying to be unreasomable and ridiculous seeing that you do not have any valid thing to say here.

Bwsides Galatians 1:19 proves repeats matthew 13

btoks:
Biology or good reason doesn't explain how Mary conceived our Lord Jesus. No point bringing it to his birth.

Off Point

btoks:
The scriptures also say nothing about Mary losing her virginity .

Exactly as it did never called her a virgin after she had given birth because virginity only occurs before giving birth and not after

IyfeNamikaze:
Of course Christ has jurisdiction over us because we're to submit under him as he is submitted under the Father , have you even read the Bible verse that I referenced? Because if you read it you will see that Christ exercises jurisdiction over only those who believes in Him and in His message. Not to the whole world!

Mathew 28:18 says you are talikng rubbish.

IyfeNamikaze:
That verse is talking about the time that a Rich man came to Him and was asking to know what he should do to receive eternal life and Christ replied by saying that he should keep the commandments. When the man said that he has been obeying all the commandments then Christ told him to sell all his things and give the money to the poor and follow Him but the man declined. That's when Christ now declared that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the niddle than for a wealthy man to enter the kingdom of God.

If you had read The Law you and had discernment you would have seen that Christ showed him that he did not keep The Law as he thought.

Which Law?

Law no.1: Love The Lord thy God, with thy whole heart...

And the richman loved his riches more than God, which is why he couldn't give them away and follow Him.

And Who is the Him, again? The same Lord, His God

Its as simple as that but i can see that you are spurring for a fight.

btoks:
How's it a departure? Trying to identify the mother of James and Jose who you are claiming to be Mary's other children?

Its a departure because we are looking for children and not a child.

And the bible shows 2 James were disciples having zebede and Alphonseus/clopas and not Mary and Joseph.

Then Galatians 1:19 shows that the 3rd James was Jesus's brother and he was an apostle.

And see the bible declared this James to be Jesus's brother, which it did not say about the other james you referred.

So, you still have nothing here.

btoks:
But you think your novel interpretations are true 2000 years later?!! Who do I believe, you or the established church?

You already know that Truth is what remains after every reasonable doubt is cleared until we reach the point where there is no reasonable doubt which is why it is said

Once you eliminate all the impossible, then whatever remains, however unpleasant, must be the Truth. Arthur Conan Doyle

btoks:
No other person has ever conceived as a virgin so I don't know where you got your point 2 from. The church was given the power to bind and lose and you will find many other examples of what it has pronounced and you take for granted now.

virginity is based on the fact that nothing has entered the vagina and womb nor has a baby exited.

And disvirginity occurs once a vagina is penetrated even if no child is in the womb.

So, also it stands to good reason that disvirginty will also occur once a baby comes out of the vagina and womb, even if nothing penetrated it.

btoks:
I shall ignore as this is really shallow.

Don't see which points I didn't counter!!!

That is what happens when your responses to an arguments departs from the argument to hence off point.

So, the thread shows that you had no counter to give.

btoks:
This is not a departure but a confirmation of who James the Less' mother is. - Mary wife of Clopas.
You got the wrong disciple in Jn 19:26, certainly not James son of Zebedee (it's John his brother)

No issue. The topic is not about James but about Mary and Joseph's children so its a departure from the argument.

Kingsempires:
just like what Jesus in the scripture said give to Caesar what belong to Caesar and give to God what belong to God so why did the protestant use the book of the so called evil person gathered as you have explained in your comments

So now you want to tell me that God uses Satan to build Christianity just watch your statement

Its like you are beginning to go mad.

Even the Jews are not Romans nor catholics yet, you imply the bible which is their own records is catholic book? And you think you are ok?

Clearly, you do not have any reasonable thing to.say.

btoks:
We go to what the church says not our own interpretations. The church has said a lot on the matter and I don't see where I've contradicted my brother. I'm amazed that you don't really care what the reformers said on this matter!

It is you people who make atheists say christians don't think and are brainwashed for if you were truly a living soul, you would have remembered that all the say your church has said all come from humans like you, And humans lie and can be wrong, so their sayings must be checked and rechecked, like the posts and threads here in nairaland.

But this is not the issue, so Off Point!

btoks:
The Ark of the covenant was no ordinary ark as it carried the word of God and his literal presence.

Did i not say so?
Off Point.

btoks:
Don't have the time for long debates these days but I put up a question based on your previous responses, this was not intended to derail but to show you the implication of your responses . Up to you to answer.

There is nothing to debate after all you veered off point because you could not counter my points, so you got nothing here at all.

btoks:
Good old got questions!! These guys were there in the early days?
As a Jewish man, you don't think he would have been obligated to take in his mother after Jesus' crucifixion?

I see you've ignored John 19:25 to get more details on who the Mother of James (and Jose) is.

John 19:26 shows that James is a disciple and that means James, the son of Zebedee, not son of joseph and Mary.

So, you miss.

Besides this is Departure from Post/Off Poin!.

Kingsempires:
....Just like the way you call the Catholic church liar . is the same liars that gathered the bible you are reading that means you are using a liar's bible

Wow! What a twist and reversal!

Now you know the meaning of God can use anyone to fulfil His purposes exactly how He used armed robbers and human traffickers to bring the bible to us.

Truth remains the Truth irrespective of who is used to deliver it.

Kingsempires:
so I should be against catholicism because of what those so called person that are not God said about catholicism

That is your choice

But i clearly said
"instead of searching and learning what God is Saying and teaching and not what one priest or pastor says."

btoks:
This is not true. The Catholic church ( & the EO, OO) looks at the whole of the word of God, written and orally transmitted and do not rely on 1 verse taken out of context as modern protestants do in order to make an argument. You might be surprised to know that the early reformers (Luther, Calvin, even Wesley much later) also affirmed Mary's perpetual virginity.

I Don't really care but this thread is proving what you said up, is not true for it shows you saying one thing while your brother.ubenedict says another.

Clearly, no unity here

btoks:
While I don't want to delve into the Ark of the covenant on this thread, I'll point out a couple of things.
You are mixing up your arks. Noah's ark is not the same as the ark of the covenant. You'll need to do more research to see whether the Ark of the covenant lost its significance!

No where did i say they are the same, as ark Mary is not the same with Noah's ark.

However, we all know an ark is used for carrying things hence the analogy and it was you who started it. So No Road!

btoks:
After reading all your previous responses, this was my question to you as part of my contribution and I'll ask it again. Apostle James the Less was called Jesus's brother, was Mary the Mother of Jesus his mother? If she was, why didn't he take Mary into his home after Jesus Crucifixion?[/font]

This would be a departure from post and fallacy of reversal of the burden of proof.

btoks:
You're putting words into my mouth. All I said was the main concern about that verse was to confirm that Joseph had no role in the conception. Through sacred tradition we know that Mary remained a virgin.
Also then stated that the use of until is not a confirmation of what happened afterwards

Your words gave the implication and Matthew 13:55-56 shows us what happened after.

btoks:
One of the children is James the Apostle, please confirm whether Mary the mother of Jesus was is mother

See they had 4 children but you are asking about 1 James?

So, only one person can bear James in the whole of Isreal?

GotQuestions.org
https://www.gotquestions.org › life-...
Who was James, the brother of Jesus, in the Bible?
5 Jan 2022 — James was a son of Mary and Joseph and therefore a half-brother to Jesus and brother to Joseph, Simon,

btoks:
You have no points against me, I'm giving you what the Church teaches. The fact is no one calls a pregnant woman a Virgin either but I'm sure you believe that. Where was it mentioned that Mary lost her virginity?

Stop fallacying! Your church saying and teaching so, doesn't make it True.

And see yourself, the bible gave us the facts surrounding her virginity in that we see no one penetrated her, which is why every reasonable person acknowleges that.she was a virgin even though she was carrying a child.

Because we know Virginity is extinguished in 2 ways;
1) upon entrance (penetration) aka sex or
2) exit (birth)

And Mary gave birth! So virginity was lost thereafter.

And that is why after her birth, the bible never ever called her virgin again.

So you and your church have no right to call her so.

btoks:
I never said 'until' in Greek always means perpetuity. what is a fact in the OT an NT is that there are instances were the condition doesn't change after the use of 'until'
In Mat 1:25, there is no indication as to what occurred afterwards as that wasn't the point of the text

1) We are not talking about instances but we are talking about the case of Mary and Joseph and the word until, which you confess does not mean perpetual, which is what your catholic brother Benedict implied.

So, thank you for shooting him.

2) Mat 2:1 shows us that the until in Mat 1:25 was fulfilled and complied with which leaves the question, so did Joseph "knew his wife"?

And this is where Matthew 13:55-56 answers the question showing us that they had their own children.

So question answered and case closed!

Ubenedictus:
.
There is an aunty who was pregnant and is called a virgin. Aunty Mary. You don't seem confused that such an illogical thing is an article of faith in Christianity, you are just confused that God passed through her womb and she remained a virgin? That is the one confusing you?

Nothing illogocal here. Aunty Mary was not penetrated hence her virginty but child birth removes virginity.

Ubenedictus:
There is no single passage you presented that claims Mary had other children

See now you are blatantly lying and being fraudulent for i showed you Matthew 13:55-56 proving that you catholics are liars.

Ubenedictus:
The Israelites too were Boeing down in front of a temple that had images. I guess they too were idolaters

So, now you confess that just like isreal,you people are idolaters.

And obviously, you did not see that God called them idolaters and punished them greatly!

Ubenedictus:
God's promise it to his church, he said ..

Off point.
We are talking about David's wrong doing and God leaving him and not about God's promises..

Ubenedictus:
it seem you don't even know what a fallacy is. You are just talking like a child. If you claim that any church that has sinners has failed, then your own church has failed and ...

If you knew what a fallacy is you would know that fallacy of reversing the burden of proof is a fallacy

What is the burden of proof fallacy?
This logical fallacy involves incorrectly shifting the burden of proof from the person making a claim to the person who is skeptical of that claim

And the truth is you know it but because you see you cannot answer, you therefore wish to deceitfully pretend not to know that you are committing a fallacy with your invalid response.

Ubenedictus:
Sorry bro, there is no provision in scripture where you are allowed to leave the church Jesus and the apostles founded and found a new church.

Clearly, you did not read "follow not the multitude to do evil, nor do not keep company with workers of iniquity.

The church Christ made is an Holy and Righteous church and that is definitely not catholic church a place of idolatry, fornications, adulteries, paedophillia, homesexuality, Lies, deceits, witchcraft etc.

Ubenedictus:
Lol, I'm laughing because Ola is your source for this nonsense.

Each of the teachings above are clearly Christian teaching. If you don't believe them it is probably because you are in one of those factions that the apostle Paul condemned.

See it. Every reasonable person can see that Ola went through the trouble of listing them down while i just simply copied and re presented it here but here you are evilly twisting and turning it to something bad.

That aside, exactly like jws, you too claim all your lies are in the bible whereas no where in the bible did it say for example
1The Catholic Church is the one true church (CCC 2105),
2) Infallibility of the Catholic Church, (CCC 2035),
3) Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture ...

But, like jws,you just have to attach your lies to the bible.

Kingsempires:
this link you are showing me is just in the favor of protestants so I don't have anything to do with that non sense link

Now you will understand why the bible said you cannot serve 2 Masters and that you must love one and hate the other.

So, also doth Judgment always tilt one way against another. You cannot condemn a liar and still praise him.

So, as you have shown, you already want to be catholic and have chosen your master instead of searching and learning what God is Saying and teaching and not what one priest or pastor says.

But, as Moses said, the options have been laid before you and you have chosen, so no wahala.

btoks:
Exodus 12:10 isn't saying that, in fact it further states what should happen to the manna that remains.

Just to add other examples of the use of until ( where no reversal occurs)

Act25: 21 But when Paul has appealed ..........., I commanded him to be held until I could send him to Ceaser
(Paul was still held in Roman custody after this event)
Gen 9:7 .. and sent out the Raven and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up. ( it's apparent that this raven never returned even after the water dried up.)

Mary's perpetual virginity is not streched from that verse.

Good! At least, you have admitted that "until" does not mean perpetuity,which clearly means therefore that by virtue of this verse no one can and should call her a perpetual virgin for immediately the "until" is fulfilled, she is therefore free to fuqk her husband, as you have stated via your examples above.

So this verse is against you.

And of course no one calls a woman who has given birth a virgin because Virginty is always before birth and stands only before birth.

And virginity is extinguished in 2 ways;
1) upon entrance (penetration) aka sex or
2) exit (birth)

Mary did not get lose her virginity by the usual entrance of penetration but she lost it by birth and exitation of a child.

And at no ever calls a woman who has given birth, a virgin.

So, you have 3 Points against you!

btoks:
One needs to look at the wider context of her role e.g. Mary as the Ark of the new covenant. We know how the original ark was treated.

So, this is your own leg of argument different from your other brothers own which did not stand.

So, clearly, you people have no common foundation on which you base your perpetual virginity belief but it is based on individuallly created grounds.

No, problem, i will examine any ground presented here.

So your ground is "Mary as the Ark of the new covenant"

First point did the bible declare Mary as so? No, it didnt. This is a creation and declaration of men and not of God!

Secondly, after the ark in Noah did its service, did anyone frame it and praise it? No

Even the Ark of the covenant, did it have any value greater than the wagons which carried the Isrealites? No.

Its value and super magnification came because God sanctified it and put Himself in it, as with Mary.

But, by her birthing Christ, God left ark Mary and never returned therein exactly how Noah and co left the ark and never returned to it and the ark returned to its normal value.

So as Noah had no further use for the ark and it could be chopped for use and other purposes, so also was ark Mary returned to her husband and now usable by him as proven by the "until" commandment.

So, your ark Mary belief Falls and does not stand.

btoks:
Are you saying Mary , Jesus mother, was Apostle James the Less' mother? Where was he when his mother was given to Apostle John at the foot of the cross?

Fallacy of reversal of burden of proof and Departure from post.

I was rebutting your catholic brother's answer only and did not say any of the above, so it is you who said it ooo and not i.